Good VST Parametric EQ

MrWrenchey

New member
I'm running Sonar 8.5 Producer edition, and I'm personally not a fan of the parametric EQ that comes with it.
However, I've worked with FL Studio before, and I absolutely LOVE the Fruity Parametric EQ 2. If anyone knows of one similar to this EQ, please tell me (by similar, I mean the thing I love about it is that when you lay a song back, you can visually see where the frequencies are at their strongest in the VST).
 
well, if im not mistaken, you should be able to use the fruity eq in sonar, as im pretty sure its just a VST or DXI.. check your plugin folder to see what format its in, then you can just copy it over..

MDA makes good EQs and whatnot.. they are a mainstay in my vst folder

search for them at kvraudio.com

they make a whhhooolllleee bunch of different plugins you may find useful
 
A couple of EQ's you demo try are, they both have spectrum analysers.

DMG Audio

AiXcoustic Creations: Electri-Q (FULL)

Both have their own strong userbase/followers.

Or get Span from Voxengo if you like to see an analyser and plug it before or after
any EQ of choice if one you like the sound of does not have an analysis facility.

cheers

Barry Gardner
 
I don't want to sound "stick-in-the-mud-ish" but your goal in the VERY short-term should be not needing to *see* what an EQ is doing... And certainly not basing your decision on which EQ to use by whether it has something as "crutch-like" and potentially misleading as a spectrum display.
 
I don't want to sound "stick-in-the-mud-ish" but your goal in the VERY short-term should be not needing to *see* what an EQ is doing... And certainly not basing your decision on which EQ to use by whether it has something as "crutch-like" and potentially misleading as a spectrum display.

i dont want to sound the same, but if its so useless to have a spectrum analyzer, then why are they built into so many EQs? just a question.. because, i use them (though not nearly as much as my ear), but i find them useful...
 
i dont want to sound the same, but if its so useless to have a spectrum analyzer, then why are they built into so many EQs? just a question.. because, i use them (though not nearly as much as my ear), but i find them useful...
Because they are very inexpensive but very shiny things that get people's attraction and get people who don't know any better to want to buy the software while costing the developer next to nothing to actually put in there. OOh, I can get this EQ with no FFT analyzer, or that one with one? I'll get that one with one.

FFT analysis has it's legitimate diagnostic uses, but only rarely are the things it's best used to diagnose all that properly addressable through the use of EQ. The one thing it is NOT for (but that a lot of manufacturers want you to believe they are for), are to give those with no ears the ability sidestep that issue with their eyes.

G.
 
Because they are very inexpensive but very shiny things that get people's attraction and get people who don't know any better to want to buy the software while costing the developer next to nothing to actually put in there. OOh, I can get this EQ with no FFT analyzer, or that one with one? I'll get that one with one.

FFT analysis has it's legitimate diagnostic uses, but only rarely are the things it's best used to diagnose all that properly addressable through the use of EQ. The one thing it is NOT for (but that a lot of manufacturers want you to believe they are for), are to give those with no ears the ability sidestep that issue with their eyes.

G.

nice explanation.. like i said.. i started using my ears, and still do all the time.. i just dont mind having it up..

they are kinda purtee, though.. haha
 
they are kinda purtee, though.. haha
That they are, no question. And they are like the Jacob's ladders of the audio studio; easy to display to easily impress the client with the ooh and ah factor.

But before long, one of two things will happen.

If you do take on clients, you'll get one who's been around the block once or twice and who will recognize the spectral analysis as a sign that you're either a newb or a shyster, and your reputation will take a big blow when he lets that fact out.

And second, whether you take on clients or just produce yourself, before long the pretty lights will just get in the way and be seen as a waste of time to even bother to bring on screen. You'll just want to go ahead and make the change that you hear needs to be done, and not waste time bringing up the analyzer when you don't need to bring it up. You'd rather just perform the task at hand and not bother with the pretty eye candy display that lost it's k3wl factor months ago.

Like I say, there are uses for it, just like there are uses for an MRI scan of your body. But it's not something you want or need to do every time you have a doctor's appointment, let alone have a headache.

G.
 
If you do take on clients, you'll get one who's been around the block once or twice and who will recognize the spectral analysis as a sign that you're either a newb or a shyster, and your reputation will take a big blow when he lets that fact out.

I disagree with this statement completely, it's just internet "I'll follow the standard statements" IMO, all tools have a position in the studio. It's like saying "You mean you use big, well designed and expensive speakers with an accurate and extended bass response to hear the low end.... if you are a good mastering engineer you should be able to hear that from a set of Tannoy Reveals"

Of course it's better to listen, but using an analyser is a complete non issue if the end result is excellent though ideally they should be used
with top line monitoring for mastering. (I don't know of any EQ that does not have an analyser built in these days, to be honest)
 
I disagree with this statement completely, it's just internet "I'll follow the standard statements" IMO, all tools have a position in the studio.
As practically everybody on this board who's been here for more than two weeks could tell you, I don't follow anybody on the Internet.

You're right, all tools have a position in the studio, including FFT analysis. You will notice I already said so twice in this tread (now three times.) And there have been plenty of times before where I have discussed and demonstrated in detail many real-life legitimate uses for one, including screen shots from the very Voxengo Span you recommended earlier (which is indeed my analyzer of choice as well.)
SafeandSound said:
Of course it's better to listen, but using an analyser is a complete non issue if the end result is excellent
If one has to use an analyzer instead of their ear for regular engineering procedures other than specific problem troubleshooting and diagnosis, "excellent" results are virtually impossible by anything but chance. That's not an Internet echo chamber parrot talking, that's first person observation based upon over three decades of experience in music and television production.

If I come over to someone's studio and I catch catch them using spectral analysis to try and match together two songs in an album by trying to match their spectral response, or some other nonsense like that, I'll call them out on it faster than Oprah can sniff out a baked ham.

G.
 
Last edited:
it's just internet "I'll follow the standard statements" IMO,

Are you accusing Glen of that????

HAHAHA! You may not agree with him, but I think you should wait until you've been here a little longer than 15 posts before randomly throwing that accusation out.
 
Analyser this, analyser that, the original quoted statement is damning to an engineer who gets his
analyser out, yes or no ?

I do not see the O.P. suggesting he was going to be matching up anything.

Opinions at the end of the day.
 
If one has to use an analyzer instead of their ear for regular engineering procedures

no one said using that "instead"..... i dont know where you got that from.. do you actually specifically look for threads with the words "spectrum analyzer"? hahaha.. i mean, i have lots of respect for what you do.. i just dont get what is wrong with having another tool.. i just dont see what it could hurt (unless you are ONLY using that.. as in, not even listening).. im 100% sure there is at least 1 piece of hardware/software in your studio that you use, that i bet you dont even need.. lol.. seriously.. what about your clients? i know you have to have some pretty pieces of hardware or a lava lamp or some shit to make your studio stand out visually.. haha

but yeah.. if the processor im using has one, then i should just not use it, because it has a spectrum analyzer? i mean, cause it would do no good what so ever, right? lol
 
All I'll say is ... why do you think Sir George Martin entitled his book "All You Need Is Ears"? It isn't just a play on "All You Need Is Love".

If you can't tell 500HZ from 5KHZ, don't worry about which popular EQ plug-in you have.

Anyway, back to your original question. You mentioned having Sonar Producer ... you have a great mastering EQ included, called LP64. The LP stands for linear phaze - I'll let someone else go into why that's important for mastering. You also have a multiband linear phaze compressor included with sonar Producer.
Try those out!
 
Analyser this, analyser that, the original quoted statement is damning to an engineer who gets his
analyser out, yes or no ?
Not when read within the context of both/either the whole thread and the individual post.

I wasn't damning anyone for using an analyzer for legit purposes. How many times did I have to say they have their legitimate uses before you realized that I thought and said that they have their legitimate uses? Apparently twice is not enough (post #6 and #8.), so I had to do it a THIRD time in one thread (post #10), and still you're saying that you thought I was damning the use of an analyzer?

That's not the worst part, though; you're not the first - and won't be the last, I'm sure - to jump into a BBS with both feet first and eyes closed, without taking the time to read the program and learn the players before you start jumping to conclusions about who says what why. You have no idea just how far off the mark you were when you said you thought I was just parroting "conventional Internet wisdom".

Like Rami said, you don't have to agree with everything anyone says, but if you're going to disagree with someone, it would behoove you to get the facts straight first.

What humors me is just how defensive and angry so many people get about their analyzer use. What's wrong with another tool? It doesn't work well for half the things that rookies want to use it for, that's what's wrong. Not with the tool, but with it's use. There's nothing wrong with using a circular saw, either. But when I see someone using it to pound in a nail, I'm going to want to find another carpenter.

It's like trying to use the histogram in Photoshop to determine if your photograph looks any good. If one can't tell by looking at the photo whether it looks good or not, they're sunk as a photographer, whether folks want to admit it or not.

Nomex on. Flame away.

G.
 
Last edited:
All I'll say is ... why do you think Sir George Martin entitled his book "All You Need Is Ears"? It isn't just a play on "All You Need Is Love".

If you can't tell 500HZ from 5KHZ, don't worry about which popular EQ plug-in you have.

Anyway, back to your original question. You mentioned having Sonar Producer ... you have a great mastering EQ included, called LP64. The LP stands for linear phaze - I'll let someone else go into why that's important for mastering. You also have a multiband linear phaze compressor included with sonar Producer.
Try those out!

i know what that means.. lol.. i just got sonar x1 (after years of leaving sonar alone..), and its sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet... the pro-channel rocks..

i completely agree though.. you HAVE to use your ears.. that has never been in dispute..
 
Not when read within the context of both/either the whole thread and the individual post.

I wasn't damning anyone for using an analyzer for legit purposes. How many times did I have to say they have their legitimate uses before you realized that I thought and said that they have their legitimate uses? Apparently twice is not enough (post #6 and #8.), so I had to do it a THIRD time in one thread (post #10), and still you're saying that you thought I was damning the use of an analyzer?

That's not the worst part, though; you're not the first - and won't be the last, I'm sure - to jump into a BBS with both feet first and eyes closed, without taking the time to read the program and learn the players before you start jumping to conclusions about who says what why. You have no idea just how far off the mark you were when you said you thought I was just parroting "conventional Internet wisdom".

Like Rami said, you don't have to agree with everything anyone says, but if you're going to disagree with someone, it would behoove you to get the facts straight first.

What humors me is just how defensive and angry so many people get about their analyzer use. What's wrong with another tool? It doesn't work well for half the things that rookies want to use it for, that's what's wrong. Not with the tool, but with it's use. There's nothing wrong with using a circular saw, either. But when I see someone using it to pound in a nail, I'm going to want to find another carpenter.

It's like trying to use the histogram in Photoshop to determine if your photograph looks any good. If one can't tell by looking at the photo whether it looks good or not, they're sunk as a photographer, whether folks want to admit it or not.

Nomex on. Flame away.

G.

i know im new here, and you got your own studio and all that, but damn......

you are a dick.. hahaha.. i mean, you never have anything positive to say.. you seem to only correct people.. lol

t's like trying to use the histogram in Photoshop to determine if your photograph looks any good. If one can't tell by looking at the photo whether it looks good or not, they're sunk as a photographer, whether folks want to admit it or not.

very bad analogy :(

just curious.. how long have you been doing this? i mean, it must be a while, because i havent heard anyone refer to a forum as a "BBS" since i was still war dialing on my *nix computer in 93.. lol.. im not a rookie, even though i am to this forum.. ive been doing this over 12 years (producing, mixing, mastering), and i have heard you spit some great knowledge.. you really know your stuff.. but you dont have to be a jerk about it XD
 
i mean, you never have anything positive to say.. you seem to only correct people.
Allow me to correct you ;) :D. You're right, you haven't been around here long, otherwise you'd know that I have positively and correctly helped more people here than you've even met in your lifetime. If you actually bothered to research that first, by actually checking my history here before you jumped to your conclusion, you'd know that and wouldn't be making an ass out of yourself here and now.

And if this BBS (which is, BTW, what this is and what it is called. Even the software that runs this board is called "vBulletin", which is meant to stand for "virtual bulletin board") weren't populated with so many people for whom a lack of knowledge on the subject was not an impediment to them posting their erroneous opinions anyway, there wouldn't have to be so much correcting to be done.
very bad analogy :(
The analogy is right on.

The fact is that an FFT spectrogram can't tell anyone how something sounds or is supposed to sound any more than a brightness or color histogram of a photograph can tell you how a picture looks or is supposed to look.

It's just like looking at the waveform display in your audio editor timeline. The main difference is that the waveform is displaying overall relative amplitude instead of amplitude by frequency. It gives you *some* information, but it can't tell you by looking at it what it actually sounds like, or whether it sounds the way you want it to sound or not.
How long have you been doing this?
Once again, if you did your own homework you'd know that, as my bio is all over this BBS as well as on my website. I built my first home studio around 1979, and have been doing the independent recording thing since then. I also worked as a hardware/software developer and troubleshooter in the professional audio/video industry (music, television and movies) for several years in the 90s, and have worked semi-pro audio and video and web production ever since.
but you don't have to be a jerk about it XD
Unlike the nice, kind, diplomatic gentleman you're being right now,right?

If assholes like you actually knew what you were talking about before you stepped in front of your keyboard, assholes like me wouldn't need to be such assholes.

G.
 
Last edited:
And if this BBS (which is, BTW, what this is and what it is called. Even the software that runs this board is called "vBulletin", which is meant to stand for "virtual bulletin board") weren't populated with so many people for whom a lack of knowledge on the subject was not an impediment to them posting their erroneous opinions anyway, there wouldn't have to be so much correcting to be done.

i was just stating that you must be at be fairly older than myself, as no one usually refers to a BBS as that anymore.. hate to break it to ya.. "BBS" and "Forum" are interchangeable nowadays in this industry..

im an WAN and linux engineer for a living.. atm/frame relay, layer 2 and layer 3, DSLAMS and Redbacks, servers and routing, etc etc.. i dont need you to teach me about that stuff, as my knowledge on that will probably far surpass yours.. no offense

If assholes like you actually knew what you were talking about before you stepped in front of your keyboard, assholes like me wouldn't need to be such assholes.

how do you know that i dont know what i am talking about? pick my brain, then.. prove that i dont know shit.. i wouldnt be here if i wasnt in to it, dude.. i mean, thats cute that you are hella older than me and have more experience.. i even said that i respect that in another thread.. im just saying.. you spit great knowledge, but you also sound like a prick when doing so.. haha.. im sorry.. im blunt..

really, though.. you never know.. I may be able to teach YOU something (not saying im smarter or whatever.. its not a pissing contest)..

If assholes like you actually knew what you were talking about before you stepped in front of your keyboard, assholes like me wouldn't need to be such assholes.

^^^^ maybe if assholes like you wouldnt be such assholes, then maybe assholes like me wouldnt say anything about their arrogance.. its very obvious you do this for a living.. you bang it hella hard on your signature.. why would i wanna do research on your previous posts, when we can just mention something you dont agree with, and watch you jump on it.. hahahahahaha

but yeah.. anyway.. sorry to the OP..

glen---- sorry i wasnt born in black and white, otherwise id know as much as you, bro.. im just saying.. you dont need to talk down to people to get your point across.. for someone that calls themselves "semi-pro", that is pretty unprofessional..
 
Perhaps one person in a million can look at a graphical display and imagine, perfectly in their mind, waht the sound it represents actually sounds like. I'd compare that to a Glen Gould level pianist who could read a piece of music, and actually hear most of it in his head in real time, correct pitches, timing, etc. It's not impossible, but it's rare!
 
Back
Top